Arizona Supreme Court | 77 Ariz. 129, 267 P.2d 1069 (1954)
Violations of some subdivision restrictions do not automatically destroy a separate covenant, and a private restriction can still be enforced unless the evidence shows abandonment of the entire plan.
Last updated July 6, 2026. Case: Condos v. Home Development Co.; 77 Ariz. 129, 267 P.2d 1069 (1954); Arizona Supreme Court.
Scope note: This page covers the public Arizona Supreme Court ruling or opinion in Condos v. Home Development Co.. The uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder; AI-generated review materials are not treated as court authority. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
Violations of some subdivision restrictions do not automatically destroy a separate covenant, and a private restriction can still be enforced unless the evidence shows abandonment of the entire plan.
What the ruling says
Condos is another leading Arizona case on abandonment and selective enforcement of deed restrictions. The challenged covenant barred liquor sales on lots in a subdivision except for one specifically permitted lot. The defendants argued that many other restrictions had been violated over time and that the overall scheme had therefore been abandoned, making the liquor restriction unenforceable. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. It explained that each material restriction can remain separately enforceable unless the violations are so broad and severe that they show abandonment of the entire general plan. Tolerating breaches of other, different restrictions does not automatically waive a distinct covenant that still has substantial value to residents. The court also said a government-issued liquor license did not override the private covenant. This opinion remains helpful when an HOA or homeowner needs to distinguish unrelated past violations from the specific covenant currently being enforced.
The court examined the actual violations and concluded they were not so extensive or so closely tied to the liquor covenant as to prove abandonment of the whole scheme. Minor or different departures from other restrictions did not impair the continued value of the no-liquor restriction to neighboring residents.
The court also reaffirmed the hierarchy between private covenants and regulatory approvals. A liquor license granted by the state did not override the private property rights created by the restrictive covenant, which remained enforceable in equity by the grantor and lot owners.
Condos is valuable whenever a homeowner defends a violation by pointing to unrelated noncompliance elsewhere in the community. Arizona courts look for abandonment of the relevant plan, not just a grab bag of different violations.
The case is also a reminder that public permits and licenses do not automatically cure a private deed-restriction problem. An HOA can still enforce its documents even when a governmental body approved the use.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Condos v. Home Development Co. (77 Ariz. 129, 267 P.2d 1069 (1954)). Violations of some subdivision restrictions do not automatically destroy a separate covenant, and a private… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Condos v. Home Development Co.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Legal hooks
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Topic tags | selective-enforcement, cc-and-rs |
Complete source-document index
This index contains 0 PDFs, 1 other source file from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Cap Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Public court opinion text source used to build this case-file page and to supply NotebookLM with a substantive source.
FAQ
What did Condos v. Home Development Co. hold?
Violations of some subdivision restrictions do not automatically destroy a separate covenant, and a private restriction can still be enforced unless the evidence shows abandonment of the entire plan.
Why does this case matter for Arizona HOA disputes?
Condos is valuable whenever a homeowner defends a violation by pointing to unrelated noncompliance elsewhere in the community. Arizona courts look for abandonment of the relevant plan, not just a grab bag of different violations. The case is also a reminder that public permits and licenses do not automatically cure a private deed-restriction problem. An HOA can still enforce its documents even when a governmental body approved the use.
Does this page include a NotebookLM video?
Not yet. This source-backed authority page was created first so the case can be evaluated for Stage-2 media generation without forcing a source-less docket-minute record through NotebookLM.
Case Dossier
This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | 77 Ariz. 129, 267 P.2d 1069 (1954) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Arizona Supreme Court |
| Decision / key date | March 15, 1954 |
| Judge / panel | Chief Justice Phelps |
| Parties | A developer and subdivision owners sought to stop a lot owner from selling liquor in violation of subdivision restrictions. |
| Topics | Selective EnforcementCC&Rs |
| Outcome / holding | Violations of some subdivision restrictions do not automatically destroy a separate covenant, and a private restriction can still be enforced unless the evidence shows abandonment of the entire plan. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 1 other source file |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | No separate litigation roadmap table on this page |
| Video overview | Condos v. Home Development Co. |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 3 questions |
| Featured download links | 0 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Condos is another leading Arizona case on abandonment and selective enforcement of deed restrictions. The challenged covenant barred liquor sales on lots in a subdivision except for one specifically permitted lot. The defendants argued that many other restrictions had been violated over time and that the overall scheme had therefore been abandoned, making the liquor restriction unenforceable. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. It explained that each material restriction can remain separately enforceable unless the violations are so broad and severe that they show abandonment of the entire general plan. Tolerating breaches of other, different restrictions does not automatically waive a distinct covenant that still has substantial value to residents. The court also said a government-issued liquor license did not override the private covenant. This opinion remains helpful when an HOA or homeowner needs to distinguish unrelated past violations from the specific covenant currently being enforced.
The court examined the actual violations and concluded they were not so extensive or so closely tied to the liquor covenant as to prove abandonment of the whole scheme. Minor or different departures from other restrictions did not impair the continued value of the no-liquor restriction to neighboring residents.
The court also reaffirmed the hierarchy between private covenants and regulatory approvals. A liquor license granted by the state did not override the private property rights created by the restrictive covenant, which remained enforceable in equity by the grantor and lot owners.
Condos is valuable whenever a homeowner defends a violation by pointing to unrelated noncompliance elsewhere in the community. Arizona courts look for abandonment of the relevant plan, not just a grab bag of different violations.
The case is also a reminder that public permits and licenses do not automatically cure a private deed-restriction problem. An HOA can still enforce its documents even when a governmental body approved the use.